Jackson in Action – case law
In our regular monthly round up of cases we look at the effects of the changes to the Civil Procedure Rules under the Jackson Reforms:
Relief from sanctions/notice of funding In Mischon de Reya v Caliendo & Anor (2015) the Court of Appeal stated that the correct approach to considering applications under CPR r.3.9 (1), required the court to focus on the effect of the breach, not the consequences of granting relief. The Judge’s failure to attach weight to the claimant’s failure to provide a good reason for not serving the Defendant with the notice that they had entered into a CFA with their solicitors and taken out ATE insurance did not mean that the Judge had been wrong to exercise his discretion and grant relief from sanctions. 13/10/15
Failure to file disputed CFA/provisional assessment In Mehmi v Pincher (2015) HHJ Graham Wood, sitting in Liverpool County Court concluded that the assessment of a bill at ‘nil’, due to a failure to file a disputed CFA, did not amount to a ‘sanction’ that required the receiving party to make an application for relief under CPR r.3.9. The assessment of the bill at the provisional assessment amounted to a ‘judicial determination’ of the bill and was not a sanction. The receiving party had a right to elect for a detailed assessment of the bill, after a provisional assessment and the outcome of the provisional assessment was not binding. The Judge also ruled that the detailed assessment of the bill did not amount to an appeal and so the court had the power to direct the receiving party to file the CFA, ahead of the detailed assessment. 20/7/15
For further information on this please contact Marcus Davies, Professional Support Executive on 0161 603 5146
This information is intended as a general discussion surrounding the topics covered and is for guidance purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. DWF is not responsible for any activity undertaken based on this information.